Science We’ll have ‘virtual’ babies within 50 years, AI expert predicts - They want to replace your own fleah and blood with a soulless NPC

Archive

If you thought the Tamagotchi Generation was a 1990s phenomenon, think again.

In the not-so-distant future, those looking to expand their families may opt to do so with the help of artificial intelligence.

The average American child costs parents more than $230,000 by the time they reach the age of 17, according to the US Department of Agriculture.
A digital kid, on the other hand, could have all its needs met for less than $25 per month — that’s just about $5,100 by the time they reach high school graduation — according to the UK’s leading artificial intelligence expert.
Amid poverty, disease epidemics, climate change and overcrowding, experts worry that the estimated 11 billion people that will populate Earth by 2100 won’t get the food, health care and other essential resources they need for survival. And that’s a real concern for would-be parents, according to a 2020 YouGov poll that found nearly 10% of adults have already chosen to remain childless for these reasons, while another 10% cited the financial impact of having kids.

“Based on studies into why couples choose to remain childless, I think it would be reasonable to expect as many as 20% of people choosing to have an AR [augmented reality] baby over a real one,” said Catriona Campbell, a former technology adviser for the British government and a British Interactive Media Association Digital Hall of Fame inductee.

This “game-changing” outlook “could help us solve some of today’s most pressing issues,” she said.

“Virtual children,” some experts believe, could supplant real ones — becoming commonplace by the early-2070s, Campbell told South West News Service. By combining computer-generated imagery with machines that can learn as humans do, virtual children that look like real ones would be able to recognize and respond to their parents, and simulate real emotional responses as kids do.

“Virtual children may seem like a giant leap from where we are now, but within 50 years technology will have advanced to such an extent that babies which exist in the metaverse are indistinct from those in the real world,” added Campbell, whose new book, “AI by Design: A Plan For Living With Artificial Intelligence,” is out this week.

The technology would be made possible with advances in artificial intelligence and augmented reality technology, including “touch-sensitive” gloves to help parents actually feel their children, and glasses to envision them in our real environment.

Campbell has dubbed this vision of the future family the Tamagotchi Generation — in a reference to the keychain toy of the ’90s made up of a tiny digital pet that owners were required to “feed, “play with” and even “medicate” on a regular basis. But in an advanced virtual reality setting, lifelike kids could grow and mature in realtime, and without putting stress on the natural environment and resources — the first truly eco-friendly kids.

“This will lead to the first, fully digital demographic which, although somewhat strange on first appearance, in fact represents what could be one of mankind’s most important technological breakthroughs since the advent of the Bronze Age given its potential impact on global populations and societal change,” she said.

The technologist also suggested that parental satisfaction could be even higher with virtual children — with more control over how their digital spawn is designed. Their lifespan could be preprogrammed, and exist in real time, or allow parents to “activate” them at their convenience, as children on-demand.
 
I can't wait for virtual cps to virtually visit parents because the parents left their virtual kid on a shelf collecting dust like an old game console.

I'm now imagining sick individuals abusing virtual babies because you know they would do that if they could. Also, since this is like Tamagotchi, can the baby die if you are an irresponsible parent?

Either way, the only people that would actually use this as anything more than a brief novelty are either sad cat ladies or the before mentioned sick individuals.
Interactive buddy has shown how quickly people devolve into violently and gleefully abusing an avatar since the early 2000s.
 
“ 'Based on studies into why couples choose to remain childless, I think it would be reasonable to expect as many as 20% of people choosing to have an AR [augmented reality] baby over a real one,' said Catriona Campbell, a former technology adviser for the British government and a British Interactive Media Association Digital Hall of Fame inductee."

I strongly support the UK doing this to themselves. I think it would be a fine choice for Britain.
 
Interactive buddy has shown how quickly people devolve into violently and gleefully abusing an avatar since the early 2000s.
If the baby looks, sounds and behaves 'realistically' I feel most people would have hesitation mistreating it over a cartoonish depiction of a living thing like in the Sims and whatnot because it doesn't feel real and you're disconnected from it. Though I guess that there are plenty of people that would try messing with it simply out of curiosity and the knowledge that it has no real-world consequences.

On the other hand, if they really sanitize or limit what can be done with the baby, what's the point? If you can't have a sense that the child can be brought to harm through your actions, you aren't having the real experience of being a parent. It would be little different than a physical baby doll or babysitting sim.

I also bet they would microtransaction the hell out of this. Sad women who want to pretend they have a child will pay hundreds for the flashiest baby accessories.
 
Super toys last all Summer long!

ai.jpg

These (hypothetical) things can't age. What happens to the child when the parents get bored? And what happens to the parent when inevitably they turn it off and they're forced admit to themselves that they either don't care or they've been lying to themselves on the most basic level? I can't see this being good for anyone to do - it could only make them less fit to be a parent, imo.
 
So basically it's a pet simulator but for child rearing instead of dogs.

I'm thinking it might be something that would be useful in parenting classes or therapy after losing a child. Not as a long term thing. But just long enough to benefit the person using the service. Anything else is Dark Mirror level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
That just gave me some horrific visions of a cyberpunk dystopia with distraught "virtual parents" desperately trying to generate electricity on a pedal bike generator to keep their "virtual child" alive.

Also I'm sure those "virtual children" will totally take care of those adults when they're old.
Just imagine the prick at the genius bar because of course they have to authorize a reset:
"See that's why you should've upgraded to VBS or S+ to get features maintaining memories during power loss and even uploading them to our Secure Cloud. It was only $85 each or $150 for both, was that really too much to safeguard "Timmy" wasn't it? I don't want to hear about the difficulty in finding a ThunderBaby cord to keep him alive, we must use proprietary cables and connectors to ensure only the finest electrons make it in to your virtual child. Surely you only want the best for your child. So, will that be one or both of the S/+ plans, the factory reset, and I assume at least one 2m ThunderBaby cable? Or are we going for Virtual Baby Basic only? In that case I can go ahead and change the name value from the serial number to Timmy2."
 
I can legitimately see this as a means of population control, when combined with neural implants which stimulate hormonal release.

Want to experience the joy of having and raising a child, without all the mess and uncertainty of impure genetics? Now you can! Just sign up for our sterilization program, and the same day you can walk out the door with your very own Virtual Baby!
 
Back